Yes, there are plenty of people here that use Arch as their main machine. I have used it at work for the better part of five years and not experienced any time lost to breakage (tinkering is a time sink I'd prefer not to contemplate).

Merging with the Should I Go Arch thread...

Thanks jasonwryan - glad to hear it! Will see how I go.

M

]]>https://bbs.archlinux.org/profile.php?id=1094262017-06-14T08:58:38Zhttps://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1717955#p1717955Yes, there are plenty of people here that use Arch as their main machine. I have used it at work for the better part of five years and not experienced any time lost to breakage (tinkering is a time sink I'd prefer not to contemplate).

Merging with the Should I Go Arch thread...

]]>https://bbs.archlinux.org/profile.php?id=255792017-06-14T06:55:04Zhttps://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1717935#p1717935Hey folks, I'm a new Archlinux user switching from Ubuntu. So far, I love it! The documentation is amazingly detailed. Impressed also with the speed my laptop now possesses, after streamlining my system to what I actually need. Am rocking Kde's Plasma on my 2012 model Dell Xps 13 ultrabook. Have used the plasma-desktop group, and installed only what I needed on top of this. Have suspend & hibernate working using LUKS for whole disk encryption, with a backup partition for config files. This is my third install of Arch on the same machine now - have been a bit trigger happy on reinstalling botched attempts to get the hang of it.

Currently my laptop is backed up to my server running Nextcloud (Ubuntu 16.04), as well as synced to my desktop pc (Ubuntu 17.04). I'm looking at switching both of those machines to Archlinux. My desktop machine and server are both for production use, and need minimal (if any) downtime.

My question is this - is this advisable, and can I create a system where my laptop is updated first (not critical - can live without it if needed), then the other 2 machines if all goes well? Generally I'm updating my laptop every couple of days - usually through Kalu notifying me of updates. Is this an advisable use of Arch? (i.e., using it for a production desktop and server?) Is it possible for me to create a stable system doing this?

Regarding the wireless issue:Try following the guideliness on the wiki. If that doesn't solve it just open a thread in the support section of the forum.

Enjoy

]]>https://bbs.archlinux.org/profile.php?id=967932017-03-08T18:56:49Zhttps://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1696000#p1696000I installed Arch. So far it's really good. I mean the unused half of my system is missing, and everything is the newest version. Thank you for your reviews. I especially like the "tweak to the core" thing.

I have a few problems (mainly autostart xfce4 and wireless), but I can start them manually, so I guess I try fixing these on my own first.

In answer to your questions I can near-echo the previous poster. I ran Debian Testing for years before switching over to Arch totally, and used Xfce DE towards the last of my Debian experience. I have no gripes about Debian whatsoever, and am very grateful it s still here. But I like Arch better. Performance-wise, Arch & Debian both use a vanilla general use kernel by default. And as with both, you can also add custom kernels tailored to desktop performance or otherwise, as you want.

Xfce runs well in Arch and is a *snap* to setup. Installing and setting up Arch itself will give you a new appreciation for Debian's installers. I'm a firm believer in using the Wiki's Installation Guide for at least the first two installs--the first one sometimes doesn't "count" according to some users. After that, there are a few install scripts scattered about the 'net and if you still like to play around alot on bare metal, then they make a re-installation a bit easier/faster. (However, 'we' only support Arch as installed per the Wiki, and no other.)

Pacman, the CLI package manager, for me is the glue that ties it all together, along with the AUR. Here is a link to the Pacman Rosetta that gives detailed information about Pacman and tabled contrasting commands in other package managers such as APT, etc. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman/Rosetta

(...)So, what do you think? What's the difference in performance between Arch Xfce and Debian Xfce and in other territories? Thanks in advance.

I have used Debian XFCE for years. And at this moment I am in Arch XFCE. You will not notice difference in performance, it is almost the same.

There is one thing that make Arch better than Debian in my opinion - packages and repositories. Debian has much more bugs, in software which I have chose. After moving to Arch - magic wand started working and bugs disappeared ! Arch has AUR which is much more updated, tested, better configured, dependencies are better selected. But it is only for Desktop, I think Debian is better for server. So after using Debian XFCE for years, I can see in AUR we have much more quality in software dependencies, stability, configuration - but it is regarding only with desktop software.

It is only private opinion.

]]>https://bbs.archlinux.org/profile.php?id=1056732017-03-04T10:14:29Zhttps://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1695050#p1695050Hi Lemongrass, Welcome to the forums.

Well, you asked for opinions. First point, some people can install Arch and get it configured the way they want in a few hours. I think my first install took 8 hours or more, and I messed that up, had to do it again, paying a lot closer attention to instructions in the Arch Wiki. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Installation_guide Some people can breeze through it all quickly, others take longer. I can't emphasis this enough - read the Wiki.

My first successful install was in VirtualBox running on a Debian laptop. I would definitely recommend you install arch in a VM first, since it's your only machine. Assuming you use VirtualBox, there are a couple of things you will need to do to get guest additions to work - don't use the guest additions from the Debian repos or from Oracle - they won't work, and it will waste your time. Follow this wiki page, https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Vi … _Additions and if you need help, ask.

I ran Arch in a VM for at least a couple of weeks in order to learn how it works before I ever attempted to install it on "bare metal". I now have Arch on three different machines, and I kept the Arch VM on my Debian laptop. I try to always upgrade/update the Arch VM first before I upgrade those three machines.

Another couple of options for you to consider; install Arch on a spare hard drive, or onto a USB thumb drive. If your laptop supports USB 3.0 that's better than USB 2.0 in terms of speed.

Your last question was about performance - Arch Xfce vs Debian Xfce. I have never installed Xfce on my Debian machines, only Gnome, and it's kind of bloated. My guess, Arch Xfce should perform as well or better than Debian Xfce.

You'll never know if Arch is a good fit for you until you try it, so why not try it?

I would like to hear your opinion... I have always used Debian-based distributions when it came to Linux. Right now I'm using Debian Jessie Xfce as my main distro, and I'm fine with that, I could install the missing driver, and when a problem arose, I could fix that with Google + Debian Wiki, and I know a little shell scripting. I have Jessie Xfce because I wish to have more resources to the actual work that I'm doing.

I would like to ask your opinion: how much time could it take for me to learn Arch (to get to a level where I don't really have to spend much time on reverting my errors' consequences)? I only have one laptop (+backups), and I'm a bit afraid I break the whole laptop, mostly because this is my only laptop that I have and I work on it (if I choose Arch, I'm quite likely to try it in a VM first).

So, what do you think? What's the difference in performance between Arch Xfce and Debian Xfce and in other territories? Thanks in advance.

I dwell in a strange pardox which contains at least two facets; I don't really like major changes as presented above, yet I whole-heartedly embrace Arch Linux and use it every day. Weird.

I don't think it's too strange (if I'm understanding you correctly)... You don't like major changes, and Arch Linux doesn't have major changes. Instead, it presents you with 10 or so of the tiniest changes every day.

Hi Doc, for clarity's sake, switching to Arch was a major change for me, driven by raw curiosity plus boredom. Those things are each in themselves two-edged swords; can lead to disaster or amazing discovery as in my discovery of Arch.

Yes, the few small changes each day you mentioned are preferred over sweeping changes we get in non rolling release distros.

A quick scan of your wikipedia reference is thought provoking; being both a geek and a label reader, I will go back to it.

I dwell in a strange pardox which contains at least two facets; I don't really like major changes as presented above, yet I whole-heartedly embrace Arch Linux and use it every day. Weird.

I don't think it's too strange (if I'm understanding you correctly)... You don't like major changes, and Arch Linux doesn't have major changes. Instead, it presents you with 10 or so of the tiniest changes every day.

]]>https://bbs.archlinux.org/profile.php?id=308932016-11-04T18:19:23Zhttps://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1666939#p1666939@Brcher, excellent points about the reasoning behind doing full distribution upgrades. My other mainstay OS is Debian 7 "Wheezy". When Debian 8 "Jesse" (new stable) came out, I installed it in a VM. It still only resides in VM's, recently upgraded to version 8.6 I don't care for the default Gnome interface, but Gnome "Classic" in Jesse seems buggy to me. I my never switch from Wheezy to Jesse.

I dwell in a strange pardox which contains at least two facets; I don't really like major changes as presented above, yet I whole-heartedly embrace Arch Linux and use it every day. Weird.

Another facet of this paradox is that I don't trust the popular non-linux OS, but I trust linux, which is made up from contibutions by people from all over the world. An example of that trust, I wouldn't do online banking or make purchases from the big OS, I do both from linux. And like you, I wouldn't do any important work in a non-linux system.

Enough about that. I have no quarrel with anyone as to their choice(s) of what OS to use. I simply prefer linux.

Does anyone here actually use Arch as a day to day OS. Thinking about moving to Arch and just keep Windows for gaming.

It's the only OS I use, and my entire family uses Linux as well (just not Arch). For me, keeping windows for games only is just no reason to keep Windows. Buy a PlayStation or X Box one, is my opinion. It's all a matter of priorities, though. No game in the world is worth enough for me to play to put Windows in my house again.

Windows-free for over 10 years and LOVING it!

Thread is gathering a little dust, but I concur, mrunion. I'm not much of a gamer these days - I like solitaire - but I can't imagine any game good enough to keep the OS you mentioned.

There's a laptop in the house running that OS - my wife's. But it gathers dust as she favors using her tablets.

A neighbor widow lady keeps getting malware on her "that OS" PC, and I do my best to clean it up, but it's frustrating at times. The lady is very forgetful, which compounds the problem.

For my own use it's been pure linux for 3+ years. can't imagine ever going back.

tex

Edit: @Daerandin, I think linux games + wine is a great suggestion for gamers considering switching to linux. Truth, I installed wine on one linux box but haven't tried any games or other software with it.

I use arch as my main machine. It is fairly easy to manage once you've set it up. I'd say rolling release is much more stable than non-rolling. I've heard too many horror stories from people upgrading their whole OS at a time. From a debugging point of view, changing every program at a time is insane, I don't understand how that has become the default assumption for every OS out there. I love arch.

But there are plenty of reasons to keep a windows PC around for games. The goodness of arch needn't be evidence of the badness of windows. For me, I keep in touch with a few old friends through Steam gaming (we all dispersed after college, so it is nice to be able to still play games together). No individual game is worth keeping Windows around, but the overall experience is absolutely worth is (and it isn't as if Windows is some horrible thing to keep around on a mostly powered off gaming pc). I did the steam linux thing. I did the WINE thing. They are fun hobby projects, but not particularly plesant as an end user. Windows basically functions as a console.

I'd never try to get actual work done on Windows, though. The uber-tweakable nature of Arch is amazing. All the appropriate programs are a few keystrokes away.

Does anyone here actually use Arch as a day to day OS. Thinking about moving to Arch and just keep Windows for gaming.

It's the only OS I use, and my entire family uses Linux as well (just not Arch). For me, keeping windows for games only is just no reason to keep Windows. Buy a PlayStation or X Box one, is my opinion. It's all a matter of priorities, though. No game in the world is worth enough for me to play to put Windows in my house again.

Windows-free for over 10 years and LOVING it!

Thread is gathering a little dust, but I concur, mrunion. I'm not much of a gamer these days - I like solitaire - but I can't imagine any game good enough to keep the OS you mentioned.

There's a laptop in the house running that OS - my wife's. But it gathers dust as she favors using her tablets.

A neighbor widow lady keeps getting malware on her "that OS" PC, and I do my best to clean it up, but it's frustrating at times. The lady is very forgetful, which compounds the problem.

For my own use it's been pure linux for 3+ years. can't imagine ever going back.

tex

Edit: @Daerandin, I think linux games + wine is a great suggestion for gamers considering switching to linux. Truth, I installed wine on one linux box but haven't tried any games or other software with it.

Does anyone here actually use Arch as a day to day OS. Thinking about moving to Arch and just keep Windows for gaming.

I see a lot of people have already answered this, but I also feel the need to say that Arch is the only OS on my primary home computer which I use for both work and play (I do play a lot of games). I came to Arch as a newbie, and I did make some early blunders on my first Arch install since I dived into it with no prior knowledge. However, it was a very rewarding learning experience and I have now been running Arch for the last three years without any issues that I can recall.

I can't imagine using another OS, even for gaming. Currently I am able to play all of my favorite games on Linux, either from native Linux versions or with Wine.